The official NMA board
General Category => New Model Army => Topic started by: Amandistan on April 22, 2015, 09:27:13 PM
-
What I first noticed about NMA lyrics is that many are about nature and love and life.The first topic is what drew me in as well as the story lines in the lyrics. Less than half are about politics but I often see this band labeled as "1980s" or "Political".
Yes, some songs are political obviously but I would say less than 40 percent are.
Is there a history behind this? Did the band create this image or was it the music press?
-
First impressions are lasting impressions, simple as that.
When the early releases that got big attention were "Spirit Of The Falklands" and "Vengeance" its kind of hard to shake a political label.
-
First impressions are lasting impressions, simple as that.
Agreed.
-
Aye shit sticks n bad smells linger
-
Are you really surprised that a band called "New Model Army" gets labelled as political?
Admittedly they have toned down the politics in recent years but they have always been very outspoken about their political views, both in their songs and in public. And good on them!
-
Some obviously are political. I discovered them after the release of high. Some was political but perhaps it was far more so in the early days.
-
Some obviously are political. I discovered them after the release of high. Some was political but perhaps it was far more so in the early days.
The lyrics have become more introspective on the more recent albums. However, Today Is A Good Day has a few political songs and the title itself is meant as a political statement. To me NMA are inherently linked to anti-fascist anti-corporate and anti-US foreign policy sentiments.
Basically, there is no doubt in my mind where NMA stand politically. So I don't think the political label is all that undeserved.
-
Justin once said in an interview that all the politics stuff he had to say were in the first two albums.
-
I Remember when I saw the 1st video of NMA on MTV when they in the Beginning were breaking in new bands was White Coats and the song 51st State were played well like others have said 1st impressions are what they are. 8)
-
I guess it's not my first impression simply because I was not born for the very early albums. The band is actually older than me. :D
-
I remember Justin saying that NMA weren't political, they just wrote about what was going on around them. In the early to mid 80's it wasn't very hard to be political. War, unemployment, Tory Government, the miner's strike etc.
-
I often think it strange when even today you can read a review, or details on a venue announcement and NMA are referred to as the "political band". Maybe I missed the boat to some extent, but to me they were never overtly political even in the early days. I have never thought that the lyrics were trying to push a political viewpoint on to me when listening. If the lyrics have political overtones, then to me they do not seem to be party political such as you had with Billy Bragg in the 1980's. Certainly the lyrics can be judged to be left wing as they concentrate a lot on social issues of the 1980's such as "Young gifted and skint" which to me is about w young people wasted on the dole and not being able to take part in the consumer society they are living in. To me the lyrics of the first two albums are about things JS had on his mind, his own personal opinion on the World around him. Personally I struggle to see how "Vengeance" is a political song when it is about the desire to have Nazi war criminals brought to justice. If that is a political issue, then it is one that all but the most extreme ring wing parties would agree with, if do little about. Songs such as 225, White Coats, Snelsmore Wood to me are about environmental concerns. Has it ever been suggested JS is a Green Party spokesman ?
-
I completely agree with Shush. You put it into better words than I ever could.
-
Thanks Amanda. I would add, if people like to view NMA as a political band, then I would not want to take that away from them. In the 1980's they could be seen as a voice for the down trodden in Thatcher's Britain which you can call "political" if you want to. Similarly, if someone was proactive with environmental issues or the Green Party, then a song such as "Ballad" can be viewed as such.
-
I guess it depends on how you define political. To me 51st State, Another Imperial Day, Spirit of the Falklands and a host of others are political songs. Sure, they are not necessarily in line with any particular party but I would say that most key-points on any UK party's political manifesto have been addressed in a NMA song. So to that extent I can understand why people might label them as political. And wasn't there a "**** the Tories" tour in the early 90s?
There also seems to be the underlying notion (especially in the UK) that being political is bad. Bands that sing about politics are serious and preachy and therefore unpopular with the press and large sectors of the public. I don't agree with that but then again I am German so what do I know about fun.
I personally don't really think of NMA as a political band anymore mostly because they have produced so many fantastic songs that deal with human emotions, the power of nature and understanding your place in this life. To me those are their strongest moments.
I do think it's great that NMA can be so many different things to people.
-
Is there a history behind this? Did the band create this image or was it the music press?
I'd say there is a history about it. I think Joolz have summed it up well in some interviews concerning the band, and actually about how this group of loyal followers, called nowadays the Family was originated. There was slagging by the press and music industry and then these devoted fans stood up on behalf of the NMA. As a side note, even some other notable politically active 'hard line' bands in the 80's noted NMA; (like f.e Conflict).
But if the message, lyrics etc. were something uncommonly new thing in the 80's, I'd say the reactions brought something that is still present today, and have followed with them always: New Model Army are often considered as something like "intellectual post punk", truely underground and modern rock band. So, they who still keep wondering why they aren't as popular as some of the main stream acts - well I think this is the cause. They aren't any scene or genre where all of the bands are copies of each other - but a group that are their "own scene".
-
Interesting points Rusco. I suppose some reasons why NMA are labelled the "Political Band", is what else can you call them ? The are famously hard to categorise. Not the punk band, new wave, post punk, folk, rock, alternative, Goth, none seem to fit , so it is easy just to say NMA, the Political band, a title they have been given since the 1980's. :-\
-
Another interesting thread.
It's funny how bands get labelled. I'm a Billy Bragg fan, but most of his songs are not political (in terms of political with a capital 'P' at least). For every Political song he has, there are three or four love songs, etc. The Clash, another favourite of mine, had just as many love songs, social commentary songs, and so on as overtly political songs. I think it just happens to be that NMA, Bragg, The Clash (amongst many others) occasionally speak their minds on an issue that genuinely moves them, the miner's strike being a classic example, and that is what they are remembered for...and which is no bad thing in my book.
All the best,
Johnny
-
Why are NMA labelled 'political'?
Because most music journalists are lazy.
I'll give you an example. The Cult (a band I'm very fond of) got a big, six-page spread in Q magazine a little while ago. Now, that was an enjoyable album that they put out, but it didn't have a fraction of the critical acclaim or fan-love that BDAW got. So why didn't NMA get that attention and, more obviously, those glossy six pages? Because it isn't as easy as an article about 'hedonistic drug-addled rockers ain't dead yet'. ::)
What would Q magazines hook be? 'Yeah, there's this band who were big a while ago and they were sorta like The Levellers... no wait, a bit like The Clash... they're a bit untrendy... people are still listening to them? I can't process this... I have no frame of reference... can we find another old rock band? Does anyone want to read about these fuckers? What is Axl Rose doing nowadays? Have we had a Noel Gallagher cover recently?'
NMA are far too divergent for the usual music press to get a grip on, therefore they are ignored.
As long as us lovely folks keep showing up to the gigs, they won't be regarded as something as basic as 'political'. Or, indeed, 'ignored'.
:)
-
NMA are far too divergent for the usual music press to get a grip on, therefore they are ignored.
I feel your point is made absurd by two words: The Beatles
Yes, what you say about NMA being impossible to define is true. Are they rock, punk, political, folkies, hippies...? But why would that lead to the band being ignored? Can you honestly define what The Beatles were? The string quartet of "Eleanor Rigby" sure doesn't sound like the balls out rock of "Revolution" or the folk of "Hide Your Love Away" or the psychedelia of "Strawberry Fields".... Beatles were impossible to define in a word or two, but they obviously got tons of media coverage.
Why NMA are more or less ignored has a bit to do with the band themselves. They didn't push for any acceptance...so the journalists readily obliged. It kind of is that simple.
-
*sigh*...
The Beatles are amazing. Love 'em. They truly re-wrote music.
But by the time NMA came along, everything had been done before. You can't compare the two. The playing fields are vastly different.
-
The Beatles are nearly the opposite in terms of media coverage.
The longevity of the band was what? less than 10 years and got a massive amount of media attention.
NMA is on the 35th year and seemed to be ignored by the music press.
Maybe someone should make a Beatles vs NMA thread. It could be interesting.
-
So glad nma aren't anything like the Beatles
-
So glad nma aren't anything like the Beatles
As am I. I like some of their songs but most are not my thing. I think they are overrated to be honest.
-
So glad nma aren't anything like the Beatles
Uhh, they actually are.
- The seamless mix of electric guitars and acoustic guitars in a rock band is The Beatles creation and trademark and it is the signature sound of NMA.
- The wide variety of musical styles is The Beatles creation and trademark and it is an NMA trademark, too.
- The mix of personal and political lyrics is The Beatles calling card, NMA do that too with their lyrics.
Seriously, how can you possibly say NMA "aren't anything like The Beatles."
-
I feel your point is made absurd by two words: The Beatles
Can you honestly define what The Beatles were? The string quartet of "Eleanor Rigby" sure doesn't sound like the balls out rock of "Revolution" or the folk of "Hide Your Love Away" or the psychedelia of "Strawberry Fields".... Beatles were impossible to define in a word or two, but they obviously got tons of media coverage.
I'm no expert but weren't The Beatles early LPs very similar? I always got the impression that their diverse sound happened once they were a very established band getting lots of media interest. So I don't really think Master Ray's point is absurd.
-
I'm no expert but weren't The Beatles early LPs very similar? I always got the impression that their diverse sound happened once they were a very established band getting lots of media interest. So I don't really think Master Ray's point is absurd.
No, no, no. Very early on The Beatles were displaying wild diversity. They were a rock and roll combo and yet on their first two albums they were doing Isley Brothers songs, Burt Bacarach songs, Motown, and Broadway show tunes! The Beatles' sweet "Till There Was You" (from THE MUSIC MAN) sure is a lot different than the racous rock and roll of "Roll Over Beethoven." Beatles were diverse from the get go. They played what they liked and were capable of playing the various styles of music they liked.
-
I feel your point is made absurd by two words: The Beatles
Can you honestly define what The Beatles were? The string quartet of "Eleanor Rigby" sure doesn't sound like the balls out rock of "Revolution" or the folk of "Hide Your Love Away" or the psychedelia of "Strawberry Fields".... Beatles were impossible to define in a word or two, but they obviously got tons of media coverage.
I'm no expert but weren't The Beatles early LPs very similar? I always got the impression that their diverse sound happened once they were a very established band getting lots of media interest. So I don't really think Master Ray's point is absurd.
I have the same view as Darkness. During their early era the style became known as Mersey beat which flushed all those kids with an earlier interest to so called Skiffle groups from 50's.
There are many books for sure to read more about it. I'd recommend The Black Knight: Ritchie Blackmore by Jerry Bloom, and Lemmy - White Line Fever by Janiss Garza. There's some in depth information about the era.
-
Must just be me because their early albums just sound like rock n roll ??? Diverse influences maybe, but not a diverse sound.
-
I have the same view as Darkness. During their early era the style became known as Mersey beat
Yes, of course they played rock and roll mostly in their first year (1963) of making records; but a good portion of their material that first year was of varying musical forms that weren't rock and roll. (I listed those forms above.) And by year two (1964) along with their rock they were doing folk stuff and even Spanish guitar stuff ("And I Love Her").
By year three they were using a friggin' sitar!
Early in their careers The Beatles could not be categorized as just a rock combo.
Nor can NMA be categorized simply. They touch on a number of different styles. Which brings us back to the main point here. Bands are not ignored because of their varying array of musical styles as someone here suggested. The Beatles are an example of a band that touched on an insane amount of musical styles yet they sure were not ignored.
-
Must just be me because their early albums just sound like rock n roll ??? Diverse influences maybe, but not a diverse sound.
Just curious, have you ever heard The Beatles cover of the show tune "Till There Was You"?
If you think that sounds like rock and roll then you probably think Susan Boyle sounds like rock and roll.
-
Yes I have heard it. It's just one song though. I don't see your point by just mentioning one song, but that doesn't mean I want you to name every early Beatles song that is different. :-X
-
Some great Beatles tunes posted here... I will agree with anyone who is in touch with the utter magnificence of what John, Paul, George and Ringo did... in less than a decade, they turned popular music on its ass and rewrote it forever! ;D
But I don't see how it relates to the 60's (where everything was pretty much a blank slate) and then the 80's, when those NMA boys first came along and popular music was crowded with rock, punk, soul, metal, disco, new wave and any combinations of the above...
The Beatles, wonderful as they are, got to lay their tracks down on an open road. Many bands followed, sucking up those various influences that I just mentioned.
So back to my point I made, rather a lot of posts back... you cannot equate the playing fields of the 60's (when The Beatles started) to the 80's (when NMA started)...
:-[
-
Didnay slang aff oor Susan lol
To the point. Politics affects so much of our day to day life its all most impossible to make a statement without it being political in some way.
-
Yes I have heard it. It's just one song though. I don't see your point by just mentioning one song
I mentioned a number of songs in my posts.
I said a large % of The Beatles early material was not rock and roll. Folk, soul, show tunes, Motown, Spanish-influence (they sang "Besame Mucho")...they didn't begin their careers as a straight ahead rock combo. Much more than one song of a different style.
-
But I don't see how it relates to the 60's (where everything was pretty much a blank slate) and then the 80's, when those NMA boys first came along and popular music was crowded with rock, punk, soul, metal, disco, new wave and any combinations of the above...
Why do you say the '60s was an open slate but the '80s was not? New Model Army had the opportunity to play whatever they felt like. They could have used kitchen utensils to make their music. Every band no matter when they start has an open slate before them.
All bands have influences. The port city of Liverpool allowed for The Beatles to be exposed to a wide variety of musical styles. They admit that living in a port city expanded their musical horizons (large influx of various recordings and people). If anything, a band in the 80s like NMA would have even greater access to a far wider musical spectrum than even The Beatles had. It is no wonder that NMA are not afraid to go beyond the guitar-bass-drum model of music.
-
Yes I have heard it. It's just one song though. I don't see your point by just mentioning one song
I mentioned a number of songs in my posts.
I said a large % of The Beatles early material was not rock and roll. Folk, soul, show tunes, Motown, Spanish-influence (they sang "Besame Mucho")...they didn't begin their careers as a straight ahead rock combo. Much more than one song of a different style.
Funny you should mention that. I just heard the following in a Pokey LaFarge interview the other day:
But I'm a sucker for a good melody, a sweet sort of melancholic tune, like I did in that "Let's Get Lost." And that - I think I write - writing songs from that vein - it definitely has roots in the past, but I mean - you know, you hear that in today's music in different ways, perhaps not so attached to earlier stuff. But, you know, the Beatles were a good representation of that. I think the Beatles really - they could write songs that were sweet and melancholic but definitely rooted in sort of that Tin Pan Alley and early pop tunes.
-
Now is it the same dude writing multiple topics about them around the net... ;D
-
Speaking of the Beatles WTF was that "I am the Walrus" song about? I am assuming drugs were part of the creative process because that is by far the strangest song ever. This may piss people off but I think it's a stupid song.
-
"Everything is politics"
T. Mann
-
WTF was that "I am the Walrus" song about?
No one can tell you what "I Am The Walrus" is about. It is a song that evokes a feeling. Whatever you feel from that song, then there it is. The lyrics are a stream of things that really are not linked at all. As an artist uses his brush and colors to create a painting, in "I Am The Walrus" Lennon used his lyrics to create a feeling. Each individual lyric line in "I Am The Walrus" is like an artist's brush stroke. "Yellow matter custard, dripping from a dead dog's eye," "sitting on a cornflake," "you get a tan from standing in the English rain," "pornographic priestess," "pretty little policemen in a row".....it all comes together to create a picture/a feeling. What picture you see/feel is up to you.